The act of account-sitting that josko performed was reasonable and fair (which is basically because Moonchild wasn't available at all to take the turns). But the noted tag comes about because this has been happening on a consistent and indeterminate nature, so it is somewhat dubious for a person to be covered ad infinitum.

I'm not sure I agree with the example to mitigate that, and the precedence it sets that if you're sitting for someone you need to post it on Wall and sig etc. I can kinda understand the reasoning, but then it needs to be disclosed in the Rules or FAQ as something needing doing, otherwise it's hard for anyone to know thats the extent they need to go to.As far as I'm aware, and you've said it yourself, that Josko disclosed in Game Chat etc every time that he sat and the reason why (Moonchild unavailable on weekends). So doesn't that mean that everybody the sitting affected was made aware of the situation. Indeed, the clearing it up with OSA goes a step beyond that (And it's a matter for the Clan realm I guess), but all his actions have seemingly been above board and strived for transparency in each respect.Therefore it seems a bit arbitrary to declare that he/Moon also needs to go the extra mile and post in Sig/Wall, when there's no way of knowing whether that is necessary.

if i read this correctly this means that there is no sitting abuse going on. Thats great to have confirmed.That josko should keep announcing when he sits for someone, as he has, is good to know. I don't know how to handle such a situation myself, should the need ever arise(never i hope) but now i know.For myself i am glad this is now cleared up.

edit: leehar, i think the noted part is that it COULD go on indefinite, and thats not supposed to happen. if it is a definitive period, then its much less of a concern. Thats how i understand it anyways

The act of account-sitting that josko performed was reasonable and fair (which is basically because Moonchild wasn't available at all to take the turns). But the noted tag comes about because this has been happening on a consistent and indeterminate nature, so it is somewhat dubious for a person to be covered ad infinitum.

I'm not sure I agree with the example to mitigate that, and the precedence it sets that if you're sitting for someone you need to post it on Wall and sig etc. I can kinda understand the reasoning, but then it needs to be disclosed in the Rules or FAQ as something needing doing, otherwise it's hard for anyone to know thats the extent they need to go to.As far as I'm aware, and you've said it yourself, that Josko disclosed in Game Chat etc every time that he sat and the reason why (Moonchild unavailable on weekends). So doesn't that mean that everybody the sitting affected was made aware of the situation. Indeed, the clearing it up with OSA goes a step beyond that (And it's a matter for the Clan realm I guess), but all his actions have seemingly been above board and strived for transparency in each respect.Therefore it seems a bit arbitrary to declare that he/Moon also needs to go the extra mile and post in Sig/Wall, when there's no way of knowing whether that is necessary.

Just for the record I'd like to clarify that this wasn't something I just trumped up in some vendetta or anything. On the contrary, I actually rather like Josko and have a great respect for his playing ability and also his overt honesty. I don't for one minute think he is abusing the system - rather he is perhaps the one being abused, i.e. too much is being asked of him.

I brought this to light because I think it is intrinsically wrong to field a player (Moonchild) who is unavailable to take his own turns for such a protracted length of time. We're not talking a week or two here - we're talking three months plus - and the real crux of the matter is that he is being entered into games that require a great deal of patience and knowledge on the part of the player (unlimited forts, first turn) and it's no coincidence that a majority of these moves have been taken by his sitter.

Can I take it from the precedent being set here that it's OK for all members of TOFU, myself excluded, to meet every weekend in a remote cabin where there's no internet access. I'll be covering all their turns, from end-of-work Friday until Monday morning. Oh....and this will go on forever.

Chariot of Fire wrote:Just for the record I'd like to clarify that this wasn't something I just trumped up in some vendetta or anything. On the contrary, I actually rather like Josko and have a great respect for his playing ability and also his overt honesty. I don't for one minute think he is abusing the system - rather he is perhaps the one being abused, i.e. too much is being asked of him.

I brought this to light because I think it is intrinsically wrong to field a player (Moonchild) who is unavailable to take his own turns for such a protracted length of time. We're not talking a week or two here - we're talking three months plus - and the real crux of the matter is that he is being entered into games that require a great deal of patience and knowledge on the part of the player (unlimited forts, first turn) and it's no coincidence that a majority of these moves have been taken by his sitter.

Can I take it from the precedent being set here that it's OK for all members of TOFU, myself excluded, to meet every weekend in a remote cabin where there's no internet access. I'll be covering all their turns, from end-of-work Friday until Monday morning. Oh....and this will go on forever.

See my point?

As for sitting, like we said, as long as it is announced and made clear that this would happen, and the sitter didn't break any of the Account Sitting rules (Forum Posting, joining/starting new games, playing as an opponent of the person you are sitting for) then this would be ok.

Strictly from our point of view, it is very difficult to point at where exactly they broke a rule. Moonchild never logged in over the weekends in question, pointing to the fact that he did not have internet access during those periods. As for clan concerns, this is out of our area, and C&A cannot comment on that from a position of any authority. I appreciate and understand the concerns put forth, and hope that there may be a way to control these kinds of things for clan matches in the future. As for us, though, it is not breaking our rules that we have in place at this time. To stop someone from literally playing the game and starting games or forcing them to deadbeat because of their predicament with internet access at certain points would be seen as unjustifiable and tyrannical from our end by the community as well. As for this from the clan side, this might be an issue to be brought to them for those concerned.

Chariot of Fire wrote:Can I take it from the precedent being set here that it's OK for all members of TOFU, myself excluded, to meet every weekend in a remote cabin where there's no internet access. I'll be covering all their turns, from end-of-work Friday until Monday morning. Oh....and this will go on forever.

See my point?

I will give you my opinion from clan viewpoint...

When I informed OSA that Moonchild will be away every weekend then I also said my own maximum number of games played in the challenge wil be 14 of 20 allowed. In other 6 games I included sitting for OzBloke in Hive quads, sitting for Moonchild every weekend, and some single turns sat by other players during their absence. I always try to make honest self evaluating of how much all my turns sat would be traslated in my real games played, in OSA challenge my prediction was all sitting together are not more than 6 games total so 14 games played plus all sittings done is not more than 20 games total. In AoC challenge, I evaluated that like 11 games played plus some turns sitting will not go over more than 13 games (33% of 41) which I am allowed to play by myself. This is approximate self evaluation, and I try to be always maximal fair when doing that self-sitting-turn-evaluation. This self evaluation I have always done since my the first clan war on CC. Whoever count my games played in any war, he can see that it has never reached maximal number of allowed games. I am the most often online of all KORT players so because of that reason (not because of reason of "better skill") they the most often rely on me to be sitter of someone.

On the contrary, Chariot of Fire in Clan League 4 Phase 2 played 28 of 28 maximal allowed games by himself, and in addition sat many turns for many players, intentionally hidding it, as proved in this thread viewtopic.php?f=239&t=174462. He has also played 21 of 20 allowed games in KORT TOFU war from October 2010. Ok, lets say that he played 20 of 20 games, because one more was honest mistake. But at the same time he was sitting for 12 players during that war, varying from one turn sit to many turns sit per player.

So to give my opinion on your question, I do not think it is ok to play maximal allowed games by yourself, and do sitting for the whole clan during weekends. If you know you will need sitting for the whole clan during every weekend, then join zero games by yourself, and that will be ok.

I think there lies real problem of player sitting in clan wars, because player who plays maximal allowed games by himself, and in addition to that is sitting for many other players during the war, is totally overused player and therefore his clan gets illegal advantage. I think that is direction where clan world should go in solving sitting problem. First step is to be honest about sitting, what I always do, by posting every sitting in chat, and not everyone do it. After that, next step is being fair player and if you are aware that you did many sitting then do not join maximal allowed own games, be honest and make self evaluation how many games your sitting done is worth. Or, do the described counting actions officially by site feature, like saying one sitting done is 1/5 of the game or something like that, but in that case sitting counter need to be implemented by the site. Just some suggestion how to improve cases of possible overusing players during clan wars.

Chariot of Fire wrote:Can I take it from the precedent being set here that it's OK for all members of TOFU, myself excluded, to meet every weekend in a remote cabin where there's no internet access. I'll be covering all their turns, from end-of-work Friday until Monday morning. Oh....and this will go on forever.

See my point?

I will give you my opinion from clan viewpoint...

When I informed OSA that Moonchild will be away every weekend then I also said my own maximum number of games played in the challenge wil be 14 of 20 allowed. In other 6 games I included sitting for OzBloke in Hive quads, sitting for Moonchild every weekend, and some single turns sat by other players during their absence. I always try to make honest self evaluating of how much all my turns sat would be traslated in my real games played, in OSA challenge my prediction was all sitting together are not more than 6 games total so 14 games played plus all sittings done is not more than 20 games total. In AoC challenge, I evaluated that like 11 games played plus some turns sitting will not go over more than 13 games (33% of 41) which I am allowed to play by myself. This is approximate self evaluation, and I try to be always maximal fair when doing that self-sitting-turn-evaluation. This self evaluation I have always done since my the first clan war on CC. Whoever count my games played in any war, he can see that it has never reached maximal number of allowed games. I am the most often online of all KORT players so because of that reason (not because of reason of "better skill") they the most often rely on me to be sitter of someone.

On the contrary, Chariot of Fire in Clan League 4 Phase 2 played 28 of 28 maximal allowed games by himself, and in addition sat many turns for many players, intentionally hidding it, as proved in this thread viewtopic.php?f=239&t=174462. He has also played 21 of 20 allowed games in KORT TOFU war from October 2010. Ok, lets say that he played 20 of 20 games, because one more was honest mistake. But at the same time he was sitting for 12 players during that war, varying from one turn sit to many turns sit per player.

So to give my opinion on your question, I do not think it is ok to play maximal allowed games by yourself, and do sitting for the whole clan during weekends. If you know you will need sitting for the whole clan during every weekend, then join zero games by yourself, and that will be ok.

I think there lies real problem of player sitting in clan wars, because player who plays maximal allowed games by himself, and in addition to that is sitting for many other players during the war, is totally overused player and therefore his clan gets illegal advantage. I think that is direction where clan world should go in solving sitting problem. First step is to be honest about sitting, what I always do, by posting every sitting in chat, and not everyone do it. After that, next step is being fair player and if you are aware that you did many sitting then do not join maximal allowed own games, be honest and make self evaluation how many games your sitting done is worth. Or, do the described counting actions officially by site feature, like saying one sitting done is 1/5 of the game or something like that, but in that case sitting counter need to be implemented by the site. Just some suggestion how to improve cases of possible overusing players during clan wars.

Josko, this is total bs. So you're justifying your sitting on the basis you are only entering 14 of 20 games allowed, yet nevertheless doing the sitting in all your own games (thus an unlimited quads game is Players A, B, C & D vs Josko).

I do like what you wrote here though:

If you know you will need sitting for the whole clan during every weekend, then join zero games by yourself

I couldn't agree more. Why then is Moonchild still being entered in games when he requires sitting every weekend?

He has also played 21 of 20 allowed games in KORT TOFU war from October 2010. Ok, lets say that he played 20 of 20 games, because one more was honest mistake. But at the same time he was sitting for 12 players during that war, varying from one turn sit to many turns sit per player

Oh yeah. Is that the challenge where KORT imposed a 21 game forfeit for 1 mistaken game so they could win the match? Funny, when I look at the chat logs I see a lot more "Josko for......" than anybody else who played in that tourney.

Maybe try keeping it on topic and not trying to deflect on matters past that have already been dealt with.

Chariot of Fire wrote:Can I take it from the precedent being set here that it's OK for all members of TOFU, myself excluded, to meet every weekend in a remote cabin where there's no internet access. I'll be covering all their turns, from end-of-work Friday until Monday morning. Oh....and this will go on forever.

See my point?

I will give you my opinion from clan viewpoint...

When I informed OSA that Moonchild will be away every weekend then I also said my own maximum number of games played in the challenge wil be 14 of 20 allowed. In other 6 games I included sitting for OzBloke in Hive quads, sitting for Moonchild every weekend, and some single turns sat by other players during their absence. I always try to make honest self evaluating of how much all my turns sat would be traslated in my real games played, in OSA challenge my prediction was all sitting together are not more than 6 games total so 14 games played plus all sittings done is not more than 20 games total. In AoC challenge, I evaluated that like 11 games played plus some turns sitting will not go over more than 13 games (33% of 41) which I am allowed to play by myself. This is approximate self evaluation, and I try to be always maximal fair when doing that self-sitting-turn-evaluation. This self evaluation I have always done since my the first clan war on CC. Whoever count my games played in any war, he can see that it has never reached maximal number of allowed games. I am the most often online of all KORT players so because of that reason (not because of reason of "better skill") they the most often rely on me to be sitter of someone.

On the contrary, Chariot of Fire in Clan League 4 Phase 2 played 28 of 28 maximal allowed games by himself, and in addition sat many turns for many players, intentionally hidding it, as proved in this thread viewtopic.php?f=239&t=174462. He has also played 21 of 20 allowed games in KORT TOFU war from October 2010. Ok, lets say that he played 20 of 20 games, because one more was honest mistake. But at the same time he was sitting for 12 players during that war, varying from one turn sit to many turns sit per player.

So to give my opinion on your question, I do not think it is ok to play maximal allowed games by yourself, and do sitting for the whole clan during weekends. If you know you will need sitting for the whole clan during every weekend, then join zero games by yourself, and that will be ok.

I think there lies real problem of player sitting in clan wars, because player who plays maximal allowed games by himself, and in addition to that is sitting for many other players during the war, is totally overused player and therefore his clan gets illegal advantage. I think that is direction where clan world should go in solving sitting problem. First step is to be honest about sitting, what I always do, by posting every sitting in chat, and not everyone do it. After that, next step is being fair player and if you are aware that you did many sitting then do not join maximal allowed own games, be honest and make self evaluation how many games your sitting done is worth. Or, do the described counting actions officially by site feature, like saying one sitting done is 1/5 of the game or something like that, but in that case sitting counter need to be implemented by the site. Just some suggestion how to improve cases of possible overusing players during clan wars.

Josko, this is total bs. So you're justifying your sitting on the basis you are only entering 14 of 20 games allowed, yet nevertheless doing the sitting in all your own games (thus an unlimited quads game is Players A, B, C & D vs Josko).This statement is lie. it Was zero games that I sit for all players a single turn, not sure for doubles though because there only one sitting make you sit for all players. And I do not think I have ever sit in any game (triples or quads) for all players during a game. As the contrary, in Game 11176769 you sat for all 3 players even when not being a player by yourself in the game. so you can call it 3 players vs CoF A,B,C if you wish

I do like what you wrote here though:

If you know you will need sitting for the whole clan during every weekend, then join zero games by yourself

I couldn't agree more. Why then is Moonchild still being entered in games when he requires sitting every weekend?Because moonchild is one player. My statement said if you know that the whole clan will be absent during all weekends (not only one player) then join zero games by yourself.

He has also played 21 of 20 allowed games in KORT TOFU war from October 2010. Ok, lets say that he played 20 of 20 games, because one more was honest mistake. But at the same time he was sitting for 12 players during that war, varying from one turn sit to many turns sit per player

Oh yeah. Is that the challenge where KORT imposed a 21 game forfeit for 1 mistaken game so they could win the match? Funny, when I look at the chat logs I see a lot more "Josko for......" than anybody else who played in that tourney.

Like in every war, in that war also I made self sitting evaluation, and therefore played 3 less games than allowed by myself, 17/20, so with those sitting I tried to not be total over 20 games. We do not have rule how much of a game is 1 sitting so that is nothing official, just fair play. But playing maximal allowed games and play much more games by sitting is not fair play.

Maybe try keeping it on topic and not trying to deflect on matters past that have already been dealt with.

I give example to show my point, and my point is if it is ok to play maximal allowed number of games, and make many sitting. I think it is not ok from clan viewpoint, not against rules, but against fair play, but I would like to hear official opinion about that.

Whether you play one game or 25 games in a clan challenge is totally irrelevant. The rules governing challenges have nothing to do with the rules of the site and therefore have no place in this debate.

Entering players in games when they are unable to take ther own turns is intrinsically wrong. Even you know that.

Chariot of Fire wrote:Whether you play one game or 25 games in a clan challenge is totally irrelevant. The rules governing challenges have nothing to do with the rules of the site and therefore have no place in this debate.

Entering players in games when they are unable to take ther own turns is intrinsically wrong. Even you know that.

It is very relevant, playing maximal own games plus make at least 1 sitting during a clan war makes the player become overused, plain logic says that. It is not officially stated, but I hope this will become officially stated.

You are wrong about entering players in games when they are unable to do all their own turns, if you did not get yet, please read the official explanation again:

deathcomesrippin wrote:If Moonchild was really unable to take his turns, and he was never online on the weekends mentioned, then this is all above board and from the point of view of a punishable offense, completely okay.

Maybe wrong thing would be press "join" button by sitter when every weekend absence is known, but Moonchild has always pressed "join" button by himself.

josko.ri wrote:Maybe wrong thing would be press "join" button by sitter when every weekend absence is known, but Moonchild has always pressed "join" button by himself.

This is the crux of the issue. You can't blame the clan for "entering" Moonchild into the games. Moonchild does so voluntarily by pressing the accept button. That makes it the responsibility of Moonchild alone to ensure that turns are taken.

I'm a little bit troubled by the ruling. This is not because it was unfair ruling but because it appears that a potential loophole(someone away for the weekends) was found and the admins seem to be saying: "Oh well, nothing we can do about it". We may have to suck this sort of thing up in real life but on here we can actually change the system pretty easily so lets change it and stop any potential abuse in it's tracks. Just seems like a pretty gelatinous position to just accept it and move on.That being said, why should account sitting even be allowed during clan tournaments? If any circumstance was meant to be an indication of the overall strength of a group of players it's a tourney and a player's inability to take his/her own turn is a pretty big incompetence and should be reflected as such in the results of a clan war. Someone who doesn't have the ability to take their own turns should not be allowed to enter into a clan war for the aforementioned reason and if they join for themselves they should be barred from the clan as a liability, not kept as a convenience. Finally, not for nothing but please let's not mention character integrity on these threads since reputation is completely irrelevant and frankly, has been proven to mean exactly doodly squat historically in regard to clans and players alike. However, I am grateful when these sorts of accusations come about because they reveal the dirt under the fingernails of all those involved and while as an outside observer I am usually disgusted at the actions of those implicated, at least I know who's who.

Funkyterrance wrote:I'm a little bit troubled by the ruling. This is not because it was unfair ruling but because it appears that a potential loophole(someone away for the weekends) was found and the admins seem to be saying: "Oh well, nothing we can do about it". We may have to suck this sort of thing up in real life but on here we can actually change the system pretty easily so lets change it and stop any potential abuse in it's tracks. Just seems like a pretty gelatinous position to just accept it and move on.

king achilles wrote:For this case, at some point, josko.ri could/should have simply told the other players to stop relying on him to take turns for them. Account sitting is for a definite period of time and NOT for an indefinite period. You can't assign an account sitter to account sit for you for as long as his blood is running into his veins. Then you can now sleep soundly whenever or do other stuff because you know he is going to save you from missing a turn. If you are capable of taking your turn, then take it. Do not make someone be responsible for your own account or lean too much for his advise.

Here, ka is quite clearly saying that indefinitely sharing a password to take turns when needed, violates account sitting rules.

king achilles wrote:For this case, at some point, josko.ri could/should have simply told the other players to stop relying on him to take turns for them. Account sitting is for a definite period of time and NOT for an indefinite period. You can't assign an account sitter to account sit for you for as long as his blood is running into his veins. Then you can now sleep soundly whenever or do other stuff because you know he is going to save you from missing a turn. If you are capable of taking your turn, then take it. Do not make someone be responsible for your own account or lean too much for his advise.

Here, ka is quite clearly saying that indefinitely sharing a password to take turns when needed, violates account sitting rules.

king achilles wrote:For this case, at some point, josko.ri could/should have simply told the other players to stop relying on him to take turns for them. Account sitting is for a definite period of time and NOT for an indefinite period. You can't assign an account sitter to account sit for you for as long as his blood is running into his veins. Then you can now sleep soundly whenever or do other stuff because you know he is going to save you from missing a turn. If you are capable of taking your turn, then take it. Do not make someone be responsible for your own account or lean too much for his advise.

Here, ka is quite clearly saying that indefinitely sharing a password to take turns when needed, violates account sitting rules.

Very interesting. This seems grounds for reopening?

This case is of one person, who cannot play on weekends, every weekend and only weekends, having Josko cover for him. Again, this is within the rules. If Moonchild misses a turn during the week, but Josko jumped in, then that would be different. But he doesn't, Moonchild is just guaranteed to miss all of his turns on weekends. During the week- Moonchild. On weekends- Josko. It hasn't crossed over, and if it would have then it would be a different outcome. The player is declared, the player returns, that's it. Josko did not jump in when he saw Moonchild was approaching a missed turn, he announced it in chat to make sure everyone knew he was sitting in, Josko broke no rules.

Where would you all like the line to be drawn? There is no number we could come to that would be in any way shape or form fair, and if we removed account sitting completely, then the moment someone else logged into your account and we found out about it, it would be an infraction. According to the rules in place now, there was no rule broken.

Josko did not break the rules. I’m glad to hear it because I think Josko is a great player and I was afraid if he was found guilty he would leave the game for good. I don’t want to see that happen. He raises the bar for all of us.

Josko, I understand what you are saying about how you are trying to play fair by not contributing to more games than you should. I think though that this is mostly a show (not genuine). The reason I think that is it doesn’t really matter that you are not entered into your max games or not, because you have gained too much control over your unlimited games. That is your forte and how you win challenges for your clan. Whether it’s strictly against the rules or not, you are playing the very important turns for other players in a very time consuming game, in which doing so gains you an advantage. So you see, all this debate about what’s fair and bringing up past history and justification doesn’t really mean anything to those who will look at the situation with perspective and some common sense.

The only good thing that can come of this report is that the practice stops. There is no good reason to enter a player in a clan game, if that player cannot take most of his turns. Unexpected absences are one thing, but this is not that. I think the responsibility for that belongs to whoever is deciding teams and inviting players to their games, mostly. They should know better, especially if they happen to be a CD.

C'mon, lets be real here. This whole account sitting issue is getting way out of hand! I don't even have anymore interest in playing in clan games..I mean this is ridiculous. You don't know who you are playing against, its like 1 guy is taking every single fucking turn..

Why not just ban account sitting all together? You can't make it here in a 24 hour period, then you miss your turn it's as simple as that. You don't have internet on the weekends, then go find an internet cafe, or some shit.. I mean, what a joke the clan scene has become with this stupid account sitting. Its ridiculous!

And come on, how hard is it to lie to have your best player take your turn because it is a vital one? Hey guys, I cant play on Wednesday, Thursdays or Sundays. So i need someone to sit my account for those days, k? thanks!

you get the point?? You either take the turn in 24 hours or you dont! get rid of this overusused, abused system that is called "account sitting"

I think what metsfanmax was pointing out is that there seems to be a discrepancy between this ruling and a previous one or at least no weight given to the fact that this is not the first time this has come up. Furthermore, king achilles expressed that it was not something that should become a long term pattern yet it appears that Moonchild will continue to miss turns indefinitely on weekends and josko will continue to sit in. The whole thing just doesn't jel.

Denise wrote:Josko did not break the rules. I’m glad to hear it because I think Josko is a great player and I was afraid if he was found guilty he would leave the game for good. I don’t want to see that happen. He raises the bar for all of us.

Josko, I understand what you are saying about how you are trying to play fair by not contributing to more games than you should. I think though that this is mostly a show (not genuine).

It is, though, very genuine. We are aware that some CC players take any and every possible chance to accuse josko of breaking the rules, and josko responds to this by being completely open and honest about his turn-sitting. He always announces when he sits for another player. He never conspires to hide the turns that he sits in any way (flag switching, team chat only notifications, etc.).

Denise wrote: Whether it’s strictly against the rules or not, you are playing the very important turns for other players in a very time consuming game, in which doing so gains you an advantage.

This report accused josko of taking turns for moonchild as a regular pattern on the weekends. Important turns take place every day of the week. Additionally, we have no control over which player gets the starting turn when a game is initialized, and hence which players will have their first turns take place on a specific day of the week - it's random.

Denise wrote: So you see, all this debate about what’s fair and bringing up past history and justification doesn’t really mean anything to those who will look at the situation with perspective and some common sense.

I believe that what is fair or not fair is incredibly important. Honesty is equally important.

Denise wrote:There is no good reason to enter a player in a clan game, if that player cannot take most of his turns.

Agreed. In this case though, Moonchild *does* take most of his turns. What percentage of a player's turns should a sitter be allowed to take? This is a good example of why the site desperately needs a sitting feature to track those sort of stats. They could be used by the C&A team to make decisions, and by clans, as well, to determine acceptable maximums for clan wars.

I have no idea what the current status of a site-wide account sitting feature is, but it could be beneficial to implement in stages, with a first stage simply being a tracking and notification system. Numbers and information gathered from this system could then be analyzed to determine site rules to make it easy to figure out exactly where the lines are.